Seven Days Biases

Seven Days, Burlington's "alternative" weekly, has become mainstream. (This move to bland, yuppie-liberal-hipster reporting has been going on ever since I moved to Burlington ten years ago.) The letters below call attention to the paper's anti-alternative biases. Kevin Kelley's article they critique concerns the recent city council candidates from Ward 3.

What I found instead was a biased article giving a voice to only the candidates with major party affiliations and marginalizing the independent candidates, Franco Salese and Ron Ruloff.

At a time when so many people are disappointed with the performance of the major parties, one might think this journalist would have offered a window into the ideologies of the alternative independent candidates. Not only did Mr. Kelley fail in that regard, he additionally referred to these two individuals as “long shots.” Does Mr. Kelley have any statistical data to back up this assertion?

I watched the Ward 3 debates on public access, and from them I learned that candidate Salese is more than just an “Alpine ski coach” “offering a little bit for everyone.” Mr. Salese stated a long list of professional credentials, as well as concrete solutions to many of the transparency concerns voiced by his constituents.

Through these debates I also learned that Ron Ruloff is not just a man who lives in his car. He offered an informed perspective on the city’s financial situation. Did Kelley not tune in? Did he not interview these candidates before sending this article to press? I must assume that Kelley either failed in his journalistic responsibilities or that he views non-Progressive and non-Democrat ideologies as unworthy of print. Additionally, referring to candidate Ruloff as just a guy who lives in his car truly perpetuates a problem in this country: that the homeless are voiceless and irrelevant. Overall, irresponsible journalism permeates this article.

The other letter was written by Ron Ruloff, one of the independent candidates.

I was never interviewed by Kevin J. Kelley or anyone else for the article on the Ward 3 city council race. My views and positions go far beyond stating, to paraphrase your “reporting”: “I live in a truck.” (Which is a statement I never made to you.) You had a reasonably good photo of me, but you might have said you failed to contact me for the article, rather than portraying me as a meaningless entity surviving in an old motor vehicle on the streets.

Your liberal-radical left bias is showing. The Dems and the Progs, with their self-serving, politically correct and anti-Semitic rant, are “objectively” reported as the front-runners. They’re just brainwashed yuppies with a rant: I invited all of them in person to debate me on my show, “Radio Free Brooklyn,” and none showed. None wanted to subject their views to any sort of rational analysis.

Remember, it was the Dems and Progs on the council who paid no attention to the city’s deteriorating finances over the past six or seven years because they’re “volunteers.” Remember, it was Bob Kiss the Progressive who introduced total secrecy into the mayor’s office and an authoritarian form of city government, and who has been allowed to skate free of criminal charges although he illegally diverted some $17 million in city funds. And the same people who are friends of Kiss and Clavelle should be allowed to stay in office? Sure, because of the backing of propaganda sheets like Seven Days, which carefully covers up all liberal malfeasance.

Pillow Fight Update II: Stern Words

Worth repeating, it is still really about power and control in Burlington. The authorities give the police the role of maintaining not just civil but political order (because the two are often linked). How can something done "all in good fun" be threatening the civil order? It became political when Darin Cassler was led off to be arrested. Although the charges were dropped against Mr Cassler, an increased threat to political order worries the authorities to no end.

Captain Phillips' Return: Feeding the Beast (and the Governor's Ego)

Our self-serving governor could also show some decency and respect for the Phillips famiy in asking the Vermont "news" media to stop its frenzy, no?

WATCH CHANNEL 17 THIS WEEK

*WATCH*
~ City of Burlington: State of the City & New City Council - Monday, 4/6/09
~ Under the Dome: Same-Sex Marriage Veto Override Debate Live Video from Montpelier - Tuesday, 4/7/09
~ Anti-Nuclear Activist Dr. Helen Caldicott Live Interview and Talk - Wednesday, 4/8/09

RUTLAND HERALD EDITORIAL: DOUGLAS AND THE GAY MARRIAGE BILL VETO

Rutland Herald

29 March 2009

Douglas driven by the politics

Gov. James Douglas has as much right to veto a bill as the Supreme Court has to declare a law unconstitutional. His power to veto a bill is no less legitimate than the power of the Legislature to pass a bill.

So when Douglas announced last week that he would veto the same-sex marriage bill, should legislators pass it, supporters of the bill faced a stark constitutional reality. The people's representatives were ready to pass the bill, but the people's governor was ready to reject it.

What was disconcerting to supporters was the confusion obscuring Douglas's justification. He could have stepped up and explained his opposition based on the substance of the bill. Instead, he offered a political justification that made no sense and seemed to have been hatched out of raw political calculation.

He said he planned to veto the bill 1) because he believed marriage ought to be limited to heterosexual couples, and 2) because he thought the bill was a distraction from more important business.

Legislators have found themselves in the challenging position of having to articulate the reasons they support or oppose the bill. Opponents have articulated their reasons clearly.

One of the chief arguments is that marriage is meant to foster procreation and the nurturing of children and that heterosexual couples are better suited to that job than gay or lesbian couples. This argument won the support of a Superior Court judge a decade ago before it was rejected by the Vermont Supreme Court.

Others have argued that it is not right to tinker with the language of marriage or traditions that are the foundations of a stable society. Others oppose the bill on the basis of conscience and the moral dictates of religion.

Those who in good conscience hold these views deserve our respect. In the atmosphere of controversy surrounding these issues, it is not easy to take a forthright stand.

But Douglas ducked this discussion. He opposes. He let it go at that. Instead, he argued that the bill was a distraction. This argument is bogus.

It is bogus because by promising to veto the bill Douglas has done nothing to quell the distraction. He has magnified it. Everyone knows that the House will have to summon 100 votes to override his veto, and the question of whether House leaders will succeed in doing so will be a dominant story of this session. If he wanted to avoid distraction, he could have let the House go about its business and give the Legislature several distraction-free weeks before lowering the boom with his veto.

So if his political argument is bogus, why would he say these things? The answer is politics. Because he has promised a veto, Republicans can say that the attempt to push the bill toward passage is a costly distraction and that it is the fault of the Democrats. Further, Douglas has given aid and comfort to Republicans who had more or less been outfoxed on the issue by the Democratic leadership, who had put the bill on a glide path toward victory.

Politics explains Douglas's action, but the fate of the bill will rest on the merits of the case for marriage equality. Supporters of the bill now face the challenge of making a case so compelling that wavering legislators will feel justified in voting against the governor.

The bill is now before the House Judiciary Committee. The chairman of the committee, Rep. William Lippert, may find it useful to bring before his committee witnesses who will describe in clear, human terms the costs of inequality. There are devoted couples who have had to live with the limitations inherent in civil unions. There are others who have been married in Massachusetts and who can describe the difference between civil union and marriage.

The most compelling argument in favor of same-sex marriage has always been the love and commitment of gay and lesbian couples. Humanity trumps ideology. Members of the House are now approaching a political test made all the more challenging by the governor's announcement. They ought to keep in mind that it is no distraction to work toward the fulfillment of the Constitution's promise of equal rights for all.

VERMONT: MICHAEL COLBY ON MARK JOHNSON'S SHOW

UPDATE: Michael Colby will be on the Mark Johnson program tomorrow at 10:15 a.m. EDT.
Michael Colby emailed me this morning to say that he's appearing on Mark Johnson's radio call-in program tomorrow, Tuesday 17 March. Tune in on WDEV AM 550 or FM 96.1 or listen to the live stream during the show's 9-11 a.m. time slot. Alternatively, you can listen later to the podcast.

While residents of the Queen City get their panties in an uproar over Burlington city council president's calling the cops on two elected councilors at last Thursday's city council meeting, what seems to be lost on residents and provoking very little discussion is the landmark ruling last week by the Vermont Supreme Court. Charges were dropped against Michael and his cohort Boots Wardinski for interrupting a speech given by John Negroponte at his son's graduation from St Johnsbury Academy (VT) in June, 2006.

Photo credit: AP/Toby Talbot.

A VERMONT VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH & CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Victory!

In June, 2006, Boots Wardinski and Michael Colby had been arrested for disorderly conduct (it was really civil disobedience) in interrupting a speech given by warmonger John Negroponte at his son's graduation from St Johnsbury Academy (VT).



This morning Michael emailed me to say that in the case State vs. Colby and Boots Wardinski, the Vermont Supreme Court dismissed the charges. The court says the activists were acting within their free speech rights. Michael was ecstatic in his email, "Look out world, our record is clean..."

For now. Michael and Boots take their activism seriously.

Michael (owner of the blog Broadsides) writes, This is fantastic news for activists. It means that the state cannot arbitrarily arrest and prosecute those who simply stand to voice their political opinions. It sends a clear and unequivocal message to all levels of law enforcement to think twice before engaging in the speech-chilling activities exhibited by the multiple levels of police that day.
Read all of it here.

Kudos also to their attorney, David Sleigh.

The Vermont Supreme Court's ruling can be read here.

Media coverage so far: from VPR, Fox44 and on the Free Press blog, Blotter. Next stop, WDEV's Mark Johnson Show?

Photo credit: AP/Toby Talbot.

(Crossposted at Antemedius.)

TIMES ARGUS: HATE DRIVEN MEDIA ADVOCACY

Green Mountain Daily:-- The Times Argus' toxic and divisive poll is a reminder to our legislative leaders that the responsibility to enact priorities carries with it the responsibility to publicly advocate for those priorities.
...

The Times Argus' "poll" ** is nothing more than a direct, in-your-face, jab at gays and lesbians specifically, and the majority of Vermonters, in general, who value equal protection of the law.

The TA's behavior has the effect of pitting Vermonter directly against Vermonter. The poll's not-too-subtle message to its readers is "Your interests are necessarily mutually exclusive from the priorities of other Vermonters' interests when it comes to legislative priorities."

This is just plain untrue. It is toxic thinking. It creates a false, media generated, and media perpetuated conflict of priorities where none exists.

Is the TA afraid too much consensus is building around equal marriage rights? Seriously, what is the inspiration for this?

Here is the problem. When a newspaper asks:

Do you think same-sex marriage should be a top priority for the Legislature?

What it is really telling its readers is "are the issues that are important to gays and lesbians more important than the issues that affect you?"

If that's the questions they are really asking, then want to know what the real answer to that question is? The answer is Bullshit! It's bullshit because the implication is false. The conflict is non-existent.

If the Times Argus really wants to play those games, what's stopping them from pulling out all the stops and pitting the rest of "us" (whoever "we" happen to be) against each other and against our neighbors? Let's see the TA put up a poll that pits children against farmers or the elderly against working people. Why only imply to your readers that it stops with marriage rights? Certainly there are other groups that can fight to trump each other?

PUBLIC MEETING: FUTURE OF LOCAL COMMUNICATIONS

Future of Local Communications Public Meeting
Thursday March 12th at 6 p.m. (until 8:30 p.m.)
Channel 17 Studios (294 North Winooski Avenue in Burlington)

Register here! or call in to the LIVE public meeting on Channel 17 6.30 p.m. (Call in at 802.862.3966).

Does the decline of local media outlets concern you? Are you frustrated by your monthly telephone and cable bills? Does it worry you that only two companies provide cell phone service in the whole United States? Do your children have access to meaningful tv and internet programs? How can local and community media better serve activists, nonprofits, educators and local government? What are your views on local and public ownership of our local communications system and media network? What else would you like policy makers and decision makers to know?

Here's a great OPPORTUNITY to give input as CCTV CHANNEL 17 plans for the future communications needs of our region AND identify community needs to inform upcoming public access TV negotiations with Comcast Cable. Help keep the flow of information free, local and open to the public.

For more information, please contact Lauren-Glenn Davitian at 802.862.1645 x12 or davitian@cctv.org

TRIBUTE TO PETER FREYNE

CCTV's Center for Media and Democracy has a bunch of programs featuring long-time Seven Days columnist Peter Freyne - well-known real journalist and political junkie - who died on Wednesday, January 6th.

BISHOP ELY ON 'VERMONT EDITION'

Episcopal Bishop Tom Ely was on VPR's noontime Vermont Edition today and spoke about the current happenings in the Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church and the various initiatives of the diocese of Vermont (effecting the MGD's, support for the church and people in El Salvador and the Sudan, environmental activism, "being the church," etc.).

ELECTION FEARMONGERING IN VERMONT

With all of this year's local media attention given to Brooke Bennett the Burlington Free Press links Ms Bennett's accused murderer to Larkin Forney, a candidate for state senator in Chittenden County who's

running to bring public attention to flaws in the criminal justice system -- and to let the world know he's no pedophile.

He knows his background may scare off some voters, but he figures honesty might win him some votes in the race for one of six at-large seats representing Vermont's most populous county.

"All my skeletons are out in the open, while other people continue to deny theirs," he said.
---
His name appears with 13 others on Tuesday's ballot, under the Justice for Vermonters party label. In his campaign literature, he says diagnosed sexual predators and pedophiles should be sent to prison for life; marijuana should be legalized; and U.S troops should be withdrawn from Iraq.

For the Free Press, sensationalism sells. I've met Larkin Forney and plan to vote for him. He's a long-shot, for sure, but he's dedicated to democracy and his message is one which should be heard.

SNOOPING ON AMERICANS

Amazingly, on the weekend before the election, Vermont's premier newspaper, Burlington Free Press is playing catch-up on a story that's been around for quite a while. It has a front page story about Adrienne Kinne.

If a definitive history is ever written of the challenges to Americans’ civil liberties in the tumultuous aftermath of Sept. 11, Sharon resident Adrienne Kinne might well be one of the sources.

Kinne is more than a footnote in a new book on National Security Agency eavesdropping, and her allegations — widely reported over the past year — have prompted calls for a full investigation by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. and ranking member Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

After she was called to active duty as a sergeant in the Army Reserve after Sept. 11, Kinne said in a recent phone interview, she was assigned to eavesdrop on satellite phone communications over a broad territorial expanse that included Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia. The intercepts included calls to and from aid workers and journalists, among them Americans and citizens of U.S. allies. The intercepts began several months after Sept. 11 and continued through the invasion of Iraq until she was demobilized in August 2003, she said.

There are several comments in the Free Press denouncing her (showing a vitriolic, vomituous Vermont you rarely read about).

Ms Kinne has also been featured since last spring on Democracy Now!: look here, here, here, here and here.

I met Ms Kinne when we participated in a sit-in at Leahy's office in spring of 2007. She's also an active member with other Vermonters of Iraq Veterans against the War.

UPDATE: STATE V. WARDINSKI & STATE V. COLBY

MICHAEL COLBY gives us an update in a random blog post. Actually it's not so random, it's downright important for Vermont activists who care enough about civil disobedience:

Boots and I were arrested back in June 2006 when the then-Intelligence (sic) Czar, John Negroponte, was in St. Johnsbury, Vermont to give a graduation address. You can read all about it here.

Now, two and a half years later, our cases are going to be heard by the Vermont Supreme Court. Yep, on Tuesday, September 23rd at 9:30, the court will consider both State v. Wardinski and State v. Colby, as our ever-gifted lawyer, the great David Sleigh, will argue that we were well within our rights to stand and object to Negroponte’s presence that day. Yes, I said “gifted” and “great,” mostly because he is and also because he agreed to take this case pro bono. While this case certainly doesn’t have the drama of his Guantanamo case – yes, he’s representing a detainee there – it should be interesting. Come watch the show if you can.

'ASS, MEET FACE'

Michael Colby, true to form, has a few choice words to say about the undemocratic DNC and the oh-so-important Vermont bloggers who are having the time of their lives in Denver.

It’s going to be a long week if you think democracy is happening in Denver. It’s as staged as staged can possibly be. In the end, it will be nothing short of the most massive, unending documentation of nothing other than the coronation of Barack Obama that democracy has seen since – oh – the most massive, unending documentation of nothing other than the coronation of John Kerry. But America loves spectacles as much as it loves suckers. And, together, it makes a convention.

BUT IS IT WORTH IT?

I just noticed that the price of print editon of the weekday Burlington Free Press has risen to 75 cents. With all that cash, one would hope the paper will hire a real investigative journalist. And not continue to rely on the lazy cut and paste of press releases that John Briggs gives us.

Wishlist: Sell the paper to McClatchy. We need quality journalism in Burlington.

BURLINGTON TELECOM SIGNS CONTRACT WITH AL-JAZEERA ENGLISH

Ken Picard writes this morning that BT and AJE have signed a contract.

What effect today's announcement will have on the recent effort to bring the issue to voters is unclear. A recently formed group called the Defenders Council of Vermont is collecting signatures to put the matter to a public vote in the November general election.

The zionist cabal and its rightwing supporters will either get creamed or just won't get enough signatures to put it on the ballot.

(With thanks to Haik Bedrosian.)

GREG GUMA REPORTS IN ON THE BT/AJE SITUATION

Greg Guma, author of The People's Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution, co-founder of the Vermont Guardian and former exec director of Pacifica, has written an overview about Burlington Telecom's dropping of Al Jazeera English in an article on Common Dreams and on his blog. The comments on the Common Dream article are worth a read, too.

AL JAZEERA ENGLISH COULD CHANGE THE WAY YOU SEE THE WORLD - IF YOU EVER GET TO WATCH IT

I attended yesterday’s meeting about Al Jazeera’s English language television programs continuing on Burlington Telecom. The meeting brought 100 or so people to the auditorum. Haik dropped in and has a few things to say.


The public comment was predictable. A majority of speakers wanted BT to continue broadcasting AJE and claimed the network brings more program diversity to Burlington; gives an alternative news (non-corporatist/consumerist) to viewers; is even a respected news source in Israel (a woman and I said that, actually); the issue is about free speech; if viewers didn’t like it, they could just not watch it, switch channels or turn it off. A minority of speakers said AJE in Burlington was an affront to the Jewish community here; maintained that AJE was hateful propaganda. Paul Decelles, a city councilor said he'd never subscribe because having AJE on the schedule is an insult to the veterans who have fought and died in Iraq and other American wars. (Actually, he's a free-market capitalist and doesn't want BT tied to the city.)

I also reminded the committee that BT's Chris Burns should be reprimanded for pulling the plug on AJE without having let them know of his decision or even asking for their advice.

I'm no judge, but the small coterie of zionists who complain that AJE is a propaganda assault on Jews are projecting: this local group has a political agenda, too: Victimhood. (I have rarely seen Israelis talk about the Roma, gay, communist or slav experiences during the holocaust. I will add that Ha'aretz's opinion pages are critical of Israel policy - funny how these kinds of views never came up last night; all this is O/T and possibly the subject of another post on here.)

There was a media presence. Channel 17 will no doubt have the meeting on its website. In identical stories by Dave Gram in the Times Argus and the Boston Globe (he’s the AP stringer here) I read:

Mousa Ishaq, a Palestinian born in the West Bank who has lived in Essex Junction for 30 years, said after the meeting that Al-Jazeera is not just an Arab propaganda organ, and that those urging its removal from Burlington Telecom would find some allies in the Middle East.

"Al-Jazeera has been kicked out of every single Arab country," he said. "Arab governments do not like Al-Jazeera."

Of course they don't: many governments in the Middle East (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) are not democratic and oppress their citizens. Al Jazeera's in-depth reports on some of these countries goes against their rule!

So I did a quick google search “why arab governments don't like al jazeera” and found several reasons. The results also showed why our American government doesn't like AJE.

The following article below is more current (May, 2008) and even mentions BT’s carrying AJE. Read all of it for more background --

This headline should become a mantra for pro-AJE forces in Burlington!

Al Jazeera English Could Change The Way You See The World--If You Ever Get to Watch It

Stebbins says the U.S. government embarked on a campaign to deligitimize Al Jazeera's journalism. "I think we still live with the legacy of that campaign," he says of the Al Jazeera English network. "They still successfully manage to associate us with radicalism."

But Al Jazeera isn't radical, he argues. Its motto, Stebbins says, is "the opinion and the other opinion," and it encourages charged and open debate. At times, that debate can become heated, especially when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. "An Al Jazeera colleague said to me, the difference is that the Western media covers the war from where the missiles were fired," Stebbins says. "Al Jazeera covered it from where the missiles landed."

These below are older stories, but noteworthy:

al Jazeera awakens the Arab world

Neslen sees the channel reporting multiple viewpoints, journalism virtually unimaginable in the Western media, "a willingness to take risks in showing controversial images of the horrors of war, reporting from ‘behind enemy lines’, critical coverage of Saddam Hussein and George Bush alike and an avoidance of the 'news pool'."

A sign of the increasing interest being generated by al-Jazeera is the release of the film Control Room. Telling the story of how the channel decided and made the news during the Iraq war, the film has already broken box-office records in the US. With senior Bush officials accusing the station of anti-Americanism, an increasing amount of Americans clearly want to make up their own minds. The Christian Science Monitor highlighted the main thrust of the film: nobody has a monopoly on truth.

Al Jazeera and the Net – free speech, but don't say that

Essentially Al Jazeera's 'Iraqi propaganda' activities are no greater (perhaps even rather less) than those of many liberal media outlets. In the UK many of these have also been criticised by the government, but they have not been the subject of major hacking attacks, nor have hosting and services companies declined to do business with them. We should also clarify something regarding the footage of the prisoners and the dead servicemen; military spokesmen to the contrary, reproducing such images is not a breach of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention is directed at governments, and does not cover news organisations. Al Jazeera has arguably broadcast images of the Iraqi Government breaching the Geneva Convention, but that is not the same thing.

To get this into perspective, note that one of the most striking pictures from the Vietnam war was of a South Vietnamese officer shooting a prisoner - do we argue that this should not have been published? If Al Jazeera had footage of an Iraqi shooting a British prisoner, should that be broadcast? The other way around? Are our standards today different from those of the 60s, or do the criteria differ depending on the nationalities of the participants and/or the audience? The answers are not straightforward, nor should they be. In deciding whether or not to report a story and how to report it news organisations have to take into account the motivation of the people they're covering, standards of taste and decency and likely impact on people involved, such as friends and family.

By Western standards Al Jazeera may have breached standards of taste and decency, and may not (again by Western standards) have sufficiently contextualised bin Laden and Iraqi exercises in propaganda. But by Middle Eastern standards Western media could similarly be accused of too readily parrotting propaganda in the other direction, and of too frequently operating a system of self-censorship. There's some merit to both points of view, the demise of Arnett being a good example of self-censorship, but there's no good reason for casting Al Jazeera into outer darkness - unless of course the problem is that its coverage has been increasingly reaching a Western audience.

AL JAZEERA COMES TO BURLINGTON

From Ken Picard/Seven Days about the "local matter" concerning censorship of news in Burlington:

AL JAZEERA will be covering today's Burlington Telecom Advisory Committee and the Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting today at the Contois Auditorium in Burlington's City Hall.

Be there at 4:00 p.m. to stand up for freedom, justice, and the American way. :-P